Apple attempts to maintain a position from the perspective of marketing toward customer acquisition and purchasing. Back when Netflix was available with IAP, t

Apple attempts to maintain a position from the perspective of marketing toward customer acquisition and purchasing. Back when Netflix was available with IAP, they were an excellent example of this. If you have a separate Netflix account already, Apple is not providing Netflix with any revenue value (with respect to customer acquisition) and makes nothing. If the user signs up through Apple, then that was a customer Netflix may have not gotten without Apple's store, and apple takes an ongoing commission. The subscription pricing aligned with this, with a much higher percentage for the first year going to apple for the acquisition. Things like the anti-steering provisions (you can't link to purchasing from within the app) are a double-edged sword: - Developers who don't think they owe Apple 30% want to cut them out of the equation, both in terms of revenue and being an intermediary to their customer - Apple, who considers themselves owed 30% by contract, is more concerned keeping a clear line of which customers are acquired where So if Apple sees their revenue at risk, they will start to change their rules. With the line smudged by regulation, they may change their rule to one of attribution and auditing. For example, "if a customer signs up for an account or makes a purchase within two weeks of downloading the app, Apple is contractually obligated an X% cut of that revenue, and a developer may be periodically audited for compliance". One might imagine how the iOS 14+ Attribution API gets repurposed for this. Or, they might just decide a lot of that is money from dark patterns anyway - they restrict certain payment patterns and we see a lot of slot machine games disappear overnight. I look forward to the future lawsuit that causes the current executive email chains to be released to the public.